We've hijacked a few threads with some thoughts about the media's bias (ESPN especially) towards the SEC but I figured this could use its own thread in light of 3 SEC teams in the CFP's top 4 in addition to ESPN recently having to make a comment about this too.

So for link #1 I present to you an interesting read about SEC bias by Rolling Stone...enjoy.

Living in the Midwest I completely believe in the SEC bias. The SEC's success is a product of their manipulation of the polls and scheduling. Almost all SEC schools shy away from playing tough OOC games early in the season. Some SEC schools don't schedule any Power 5 opponents at all. Also, 4 SEC schools wait to play big OOC rivalries at the end of the season making it hard to gauge where the SEC stacks up against the other 4 major conferences. The SEC also loves to schedule cream puffs the week before those OOC rivalries in order to rest their players and gain extra preparation time. Only recently have the ACC schools started doing the same thing in order to combat this problem. A by-product of this scheduling tactic is that SEC schools play conference games sooner than other leagues. This leads pollsters into thinking that since overhyped SEC school A beat overhyped SEC school SEC school B in the first few weeks of the season overhyped SEC school A is the national title frontrunner and overhyped SEC school B is still really great and should be in the playoff (or BCS bowl before that) even with 1-2 losses. Something else that builds the SEC hype that I touched on before is that the weaker SEC schools won't schedule any Power 5 opponents--its quite common for them to play 4 cream puffs and then sneak into a bowl with a 2-6 conference record. This tactic also makes the conference look like it has greater depth than it does because even the weak teams have a bunch of wins. Bowls are another way the SEC inflates themselves--OOC games, including bowls, are one of the best ways to size up teams and gauge the overall strength of a conference. The SEC plays all of their bowls within their conference footprint in front of pro-SEC crowds without having to adjust to a different climate

Living in the Midwest I completely believe in the SEC bias. The SEC's success is a product of their manipulation of the polls and scheduling. Almost all SEC schools shy away from playing tough OOC games early in the season. Some SEC schools don't schedule any Power 5 opponents at all. Also, 4 SEC schools wait to play big OOC rivalries at the end of the season making it hard to gauge where the SEC stacks up against the other 4 major conferences. The SEC also loves to schedule cream puffs the week before those OOC rivalries in order to rest their players and gain extra preparation time. Only recently have the ACC schools started doing the same thing in order to combat this problem. A by-product of this scheduling tactic is that SEC schools play conference games sooner than other leagues. This leads pollsters into thinking that since overhyped SEC school A beat overhyped SEC school SEC school B in the first few weeks of the season overhyped SEC school A is the national title frontrunner and overhyped SEC school B is still really great and should be in the playoff (or BCS bowl before that) even with 1-2 losses. Something else that builds the SEC hype that I touched on before is that the weaker SEC schools won't schedule any Power 5 opponents--its quite common for them to play 4 cream puffs and then sneak into a bowl with a 2-6 conference record. This tactic also makes the conference look like it has greater depth than it does because even the weak teams have a bunch of wins. Bowls are another way the SEC inflates themselves--OOC games, including bowls, are one of the best ways to size up teams and gauge the overall strength of a conference. The SEC plays all of their bowls within their conference footprint in front of pro-SEC crowds without having to adjust to a different climate

I'll bite on this and it was expected. The reality is the SEC is the best conference with fb and where those schools are ranked are fundamentally deserved. Alabama, and Auburn somewhat (incidentally not a fan of either), get kicked-up by expectations, but head-to-head with anyone, the bookies will favor them---and they are not about losing money. It will change as more head-to-head action occurs. Every P5 Commissioner had direct input into the composition of that selection committee. Is your claim that the committee members are all void of integrity and objectivity? Jeff Long is the one guy with SEC history, and the other one, Archie Manning is ill and not even deliberating with them. Some schools such as Stanford and Notre Dame, have multiple ties within. I could refute or counter every prejudicial statement you delivered, and that of the character above you. You indicate you are from the Midwest; they are very well represented with sportswriters and prior coaches poll-- AP, etc. So, ESPN controls all of them? But it's not worth the time on this digressing website.

The standard schedule is 8 conference games, perhaps two reasonably challenging games vs. P5 opponenets, and 2 cream-puffs (bad G5 teams or FCS or even a local D-2).

So you roll up 70 points vs. some cream-puffs and everybody says: "WOW look at these guys !"

I watched quite a bit of Mississippi vs. LSU last week. I think Ole Miss looked INEPT. Wallace lacked poise with the game on the line, and the coach couldn't make up his mind about FG or TD at the end of regulation,wound up with Delay of game, which took them out of FG range, then had Wallace hurl a pass into triple-coverage short of the goal line for a game-ending INT.THAT WAS PATHETIC !!! To see a team with such an unprepared coaching staff ranked at the top of the polls shoud tell you something.

When the BCS used a Coaches Poll, numerous coaches admitted THEY did not actually fill out the poll them selves, they handed the form to the Sports Information Director.So the poll rankings are left up to somebody whose job does not require him / her to actually watch any games, which provides a lot of ignorance regarding teams from other conferences.So instead of watching all 120+ FBS schools, they fall back on historical knowledge.

Alabama - they've got Nick Saban, they're always pretty good !Auburn - they beat 'Bama last year, they're probably pretty good this year....Ole Miss / MSU - they have a good record, they play in the SEC West - they shoudl be ranked way up there.LSU - they have Les Miles and won 2 National Championships in the past decade or so - they should be up there...

Granted the SEC west is a gauntlet, and if you can emerge with 0 or 1 loss, you deserve to be in the Final Four (CFP).However, a few of these teams will fall by the wayside between now and December.

The standard schedule is 8 conference games, perhaps two reasonably challenging games vs. P5 opponenets, and 2 cream-puffs (bad G5 teams or FCS or even a local D-2).

So you roll up 70 points vs. some cream-puffs and everybody says: "WOW look at these guys !"

I watched quite a bit of Mississippi vs. LSU last week. I think Ole Miss looked INEPT. Wallace lacked poise with the game on the line, and the coach couldn't make up his mind about FG or TD at the end of regulation,wound up with Delay of game, which took them out of FG range, then had Wallace hurl a pass into triple-coverage short of the goal line for a game-ending INT.THAT WAS PATHETIC !!! To see a team with such an unprepared coaching staff ranked at the top of the polls shoud tell you something.

When the BCS used a Coaches Poll, numerous coaches admitted THEY did not actually fill out the poll them selves, they handed the form to the Sports Information Director.So the poll rankings are left up to somebody whose job does not require him / her to actually watch any games, which provides a lot of ignorance regarding teams from other conferences.So instead of watching all 120+ FBS schools, they fall back on historical knowledge.

Alabama - they've got Nick Saban, they're always pretty good !Auburn - they beat 'Bama last year, they're probably pretty good this year....Ole Miss / MSU - they have a good record, they play in the SEC West - they shoudl be ranked way up there.LSU - they have Les Miles and won 2 National Championships in the past decade or so - they should be up there...

Granted the SEC west is a gauntlet, and if you can emerge with 0 or 1 loss, you deserve to be in the Final Four (CFP).However, a few of these teams will fall by the wayside between now and December.

Stassen has run some pretty good numbers on this subject matter. Here's their breakdown of cumulative overrated/underrated college football teams from 1989 through 2013. That's long-term, near two and half decades, and certainly long enough to show a pattern. Obviously any of these listings can vary and are subject to human and statistical errors. Nevertheless, it is not an opinion piece, but shows the real numbers. Scroll down on the list, the bottom grouping shows the individual schools, not by conference, who have been the highest in being overrated. The underrated hang at the top.

By the way, the #1 team in the country currently (and I emphasize currently), Mississippi State, was not ranked in any of the major pre-season polls. Even within the SEC, they were picked to finish 6 or 7 in the west. It must have been the most fantastic conspiracy ever in college football by ESPN, the SEC, and bribing all the pollsters, sportswriters, from every corner of the country at mid-season. Maybe they hired the Russians to alter the computer software. You think?

Living in the Midwest I completely believe in the SEC bias. The SEC's success is a product of their manipulation of the polls and scheduling. Almost all SEC schools shy away from playing tough OOC games early in the season. Some SEC schools don't schedule any Power 5 opponents at all. Also, 4 SEC schools wait to play big OOC rivalries at the end of the season making it hard to gauge where the SEC stacks up against the other 4 major conferences. The SEC also loves to schedule cream puffs the week before those OOC rivalries in order to rest their players and gain extra preparation time. Only recently have the ACC schools started doing the same thing in order to combat this problem. A by-product of this scheduling tactic is that SEC schools play conference games sooner than other leagues. This leads pollsters into thinking that since overhyped SEC school A beat overhyped SEC school SEC school B in the first few weeks of the season overhyped SEC school A is the national title frontrunner and overhyped SEC school B is still really great and should be in the playoff (or BCS bowl before that) even with 1-2 losses. Something else that builds the SEC hype that I touched on before is that the weaker SEC schools won't schedule any Power 5 opponents--its quite common for them to play 4 cream puffs and then sneak into a bowl with a 2-6 conference record. This tactic also makes the conference look like it has greater depth than it does because even the weak teams have a bunch of wins. Bowls are another way the SEC inflates themselves--OOC games, including bowls, are one of the best ways to size up teams and gauge the overall strength of a conference. The SEC plays all of their bowls within their conference footprint in front of pro-SEC crowds without having to adjust to a different climate

I'll bite on this and it was expected. The reality is the SEC is the best conference with fb and where those schools are ranked are fundamentally deserved. Alabama, and Auburn somewhat (incidentally not a fan of either), get kicked-up by expectations, but head-to-head with anyone, the bookies will favor them---and they are not about losing money. It will change as more head-to-head action occurs. Every P5 Commissioner had direct input into the composition of that selection committee. Is your claim that the committee members are all void of integrity and objectivity? Jeff Long is the one guy with SEC history, and the other one, Archie Manning is ill and not even deliberating with them. Some schools such as Stanford and Notre Dame, have multiple ties within. I could refute or counter every prejudicial statement you delivered, and that of the character above you. You indicate you are from the Midwest; they are very well represented with sportswriters and prior coaches poll-- AP, etc. So, ESPN controls all of them? But it's not worth the time on this digressing website.

sec03--You failed to address any of my points. The SEC manipulates their schedules to make themselves look better than they really are and pollsters continue to fall for it. SEC schools have been dodging tough OOC games for over a decade and when they do play them they have to either have a virtual home game or a bye/cream puff right beforehand. Don't get me wrong, the SEC is a good football conference but they aren't much if any better than the other 4 big conferences.

Exactly which conferences are playing more quality competitors than the SEC?I'm not a fan of any SEC school but the schedules seem real similar to all the other conferences that would be considered for a playoff spot.

Exactly which conferences are playing more quality competitors than the SEC?I'm not a fan of any SEC school but the schedules seem real similar to all the other conferences that would be considered for a playoff spot.

You should read the link I posted in the OP...

Quote:

Games played vs OOC power 5 teams by conference in 2014: B1G=16, ACC=12, B12=10, PAC12=9, SEC=7

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

There is an obvious SEC Bias in the media (ESPN). I'm not saying the SEC is the worst conference in history. They are without a doubt one of the three Power 5 here to stay (along with the PAC 12 and BIG). I even think think Miss St. and Auburn deserve to be a top 5 team. (But not Bama, Ole Miss, or LSU based on what I've seen).

The thing I wondered was "why the South Eastern Conference out of all conferences? Why not the PAC 12 or BIG, which have major media markets like NY, L.A, CHI, and SF? The biggest markets the SEC has is ATL, and NO." And then it hit me. The big markets had already been claimed for, and Disney was afraid of losing money and influence in there sports division. The PAC 12 and BIG didn't need exposure on ESPN to remain relevant, thanks to their T.V contracts.

Disney was in danger of losing prime programming and needed to prop up another conference to take advantage of. The Big 12 was in turmoil and the ACC was (and still is) not a football conference. Step in the SEC. A historically stable conference that had the ability to become a major cash cow. It had no T.V deal at the time and no major NFL teams to root for (besides the Falcons and Saints) The South was basically prime for the taking for Disney.

And we all know what was the result. Disney basically forced FOX (PAC 12 and BIG) into forming a college football playoff (only on ESPN) and COMMITTEE. The playoff was one thing, but a committee opens the possibility for 2 SEC teams making it in (and making a profit for Disney) The only question now is should we blame the SEC or Disney for the SEC bias in the media/polls? I say blame Disney just because I would want the same money and treatment for the PAC 12 that the SEC has.

Exactly which conferences are playing more quality competitors than the SEC?I'm not a fan of any SEC school but the schedules seem real similar to all the other conferences that would be considered for a playoff spot.

You should read the link I posted in the OP...

Quote:

Games played vs OOC power 5 teams by conference in 2014: B1G=16, ACC=12, B12=10, PAC12=9, SEC=7

There is an obvious SEC Bias in the media (ESPN). I'm not saying the SEC is the worst conference in history. They are without a doubt one of the three Power 5 here to stay (along with the PAC 12 and BIG). I even think think Miss St. and Auburn deserve to be a top 5 team. (But not Bama, Ole Miss, or LSU based on what I've seen).

The thing I wondered was "why the South Eastern Conference out of all conferences? Why not the PAC 12 or BIG, which have major media markets like NY, L.A, CHI, and SF? The biggest markets the SEC has is ATL, and NO." And then it hit me. The big markets had already been claimed for, and Disney was afraid of losing money and influence in there sports division. The PAC 12 and BIG didn't need exposure on ESPN to remain relevant, thanks to their T.V contracts.

Disney was in danger of losing prime programming and needed to prop up another conference to take advantage of. The Big 12 was in turmoil and the ACC was (and still is) not a football conference. Step in the SEC. A historically stable conference that had the ability to become a major cash cow. It had no T.V deal at the time and no major NFL teams to root for (besides the Falcons and Saints) The South was basically prime for the taking for Disney.

And we all know what was the result. Disney basically forced FOX (PAC 12 and BIG) into forming a college football playoff (only on ESPN) and COMMITTEE. The playoff was one thing, but a committee opens the possibility for 2 SEC teams making it in (and making a profit for Disney) The only question now is should we blame the SEC or Disney for the SEC bias in the media/polls? I say blame Disney just because I would want the same money and treatment for the PAC 12 that the SEC has.

In this case, hate the game (Disney) and not the player (SEC)

Also, how do you do it so your post shows another person's post?

^ When you sign on/log-in, if you're replying, look in the content below the reply box, as you'll be able to quote other messages. When signed on, you should see an option on every post about replying to that post, which automatically quotes it in the reply.

As to the post...I'm from PA, and have lived, worked, or frequently visited all along that Megalopolis swath (DC to Boston). Two years ago around Thanksgiving, my wife and I went to Disney World. The closer we got to the holiday, I saw the strangest phenomenon, thousands of people wearing their SEC schools' apparel. Like, a SEC fan convention. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else I've been. The SEC is college football's prime market: the sport is adored in the region, and the schools have unparalleled fan support throughout most, if not all (sorry, Vandy) its members. No other conference has that.

^ When you sign on/log-in, if you're replying, look in the content below the reply box, as you'll be able to quote other messages. When signed on, you should see an option on every post about replying to that post, which automatically quotes it in the reply.

As to the post...I'm from PA, and have lived, worked, or frequently visited all along that Megalopolis swath (DC to Boston). Two years ago around Thanksgiving, my wife and I went to Disney World. The closer we got to the holiday, I saw the strangest phenomenon, thousands of people wearing their SEC schools' apparel. Like, a SEC fan convention. I've never seen anything like it anywhere else I've been. The SEC is college football's prime market: the sport is adored in the region, and the schools have unparalleled fan support throughout most, if not all (sorry, Vandy) its members. No other conference has that.

Thanks TBC for that, and the validation. Your experience proves my point that the SEC bias has a financial reason. Disney knows that the South has crazy devoted and fanatical fans, which is something they can profit from. Especially if there seen as the greatest thing since JFK.

Exactly which conferences are playing more quality competitors than the SEC?I'm not a fan of any SEC school but the schedules seem real similar to all the other conferences that would be considered for a playoff spot.

You should read the link I posted in the OP...

Quote:

Games played vs OOC power 5 teams by conference in 2014: B1G=16, ACC=12, B12=10, PAC12=9, SEC=7

I count 11 for the SEC?

That's games played so far this year, they still have 4 ACC rivalry games yet to be played.

The point is that the SEC out of all the conferences have played the least P5 opponents and the SEC West in particular has only played 4. And while yes they won those games schools like Ole Miss, Miss St, and A&M are getting credit for playing nobody.

The Big12, B1G, and ACC will all average at least 1 P5 OOC game per conference member and the PAC12 is only 1 game shy assuming we aren't counting BYU.

Meanwhile the SEC is 3 short of hitting the 1 per team average.

And let's not forget that the PAC12, B1G, and Big12 all play 9 OOC games to the SEC/ACC's 8 meaning that not only is the ACC lagging behind every other conference in P5 OOC opponents but they also lagging behind every conference in terms of total P5 opponents as every conference averages around 10 while the SEC doesn't even hit 9.

Funny that no one in the media ever points this out but people love to say that it's unfair the the Big12 doesn't have a CCG when they're already playing more quality P5 games than the mighty SEC.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum